get_favorite_recipesRetrieve recipes marked as household favorites, including ratings, so you can re-propose them by recipe_id for future meal plans.
Recipes marked as household favorites, with ratings. Good candidates to re-propose by recipe_id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / image_generatedAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Photo was generated by Agent Chef, so it is safe to show publicly",
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / is_publicAdded value: +{
+ "type": [
+ "boolean",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / public_urlAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Indexable public page, when published",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / source_recipe_idAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Set when this is the household's copy of a Community recipe",
+ "type": [
+ "string",
+ "null"
+ ]
+}v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that recipes have ratings and are good candidates for re-proposal, but does not disclose pagination, sorting, or other behavioral details. With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no wasted words, front-loading the key information about what the tool returns and its intended use.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters, no required fields, and an output schema that presumably describes the return format, the description is nearly complete. It could mention that it returns a list or provide more context about ratings, but it covers the essential purpose and a key use case.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so parameter semantics is not a major concern; baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is correct since there are none.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific resource: 'Recipes marked as household favorites, with ratings.' This is clear about what is returned, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_recipe_preferences or search_recipes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides usage guidance: 'Good candidates to re-propose by recipe_id.' This implies when to use the tool (for re-proposing recipes) but does not specify when not to use it or name alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.